Quote:
He acted on point of law.
The language of the SVA may need to be tweaked.
I anticipate a final victory.
My cup is always half full.
|
Bob, you have a point however, this needs attention NOW. Without any kind of push who know's how long that could take. I've begun e-mailing anyone and everyone that can help bring this to light (public attention) and possibly get some type of Congressional reaction. I started with the two sponsors....
Quote:
|
The Act was first introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on July 19, 2005, by Representative John Salazar, a Democrat from Colorado, as H.R. 3352.[2][3] It was introduced into the Senate by Senator Kent Conrad, a Democrat from North Dakota, on November 10, 2005, as S. 1998.[4][5] The Senate version was passed unanimously on September 7, 2006.[5][6] The Senate version then went to the same House Judiciary Committee that held the House version. The Act briefly stalled, but the House subsequently passed the Senate version, S. 1998, on December 6, 2006.
|
Some history on this case:
[QUOTE]As of January 2010, a legal challenge concerning the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act is underway in the U.S. District Court in Denver, Colorado. Rick Strandlof founded an organization called Colorado Veterans Alliance, and is accused of posing as Marine Captain "Rick Duncan" and claiming to have received a Silver Star and Purple Heart in the Iraq War to obtain funds for his organization. Strandlof's attorney believes the law is too vague and that "protecting the reputation of military decorations is insufficient to survive this exacting scrutiny."[17] The Rutherford Institute, a Virginia-based civil liberties group, joined in the case on January 20, 2010. "Such expression remains within the presumptive protection afforded pure speech by the First Amendment,"
the Institute's attorney wrote. "As such, the Stolen Valor Act is an unconstitutional restraint on the freedom of speech."[/QUOTE]